Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
SECTION 15-1-310. Liability for emergency care rendered at scene of accident.
Any person, who in good faith gratuitously renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim thereof, shall not be liable for any civil damages for any personal injury as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering the emergency care or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person, except acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or wilful or wanton misconduct.
i.e. You are not required to give aid. Second, you can still be sued for negligence of wilfull or wanton misconduct. In my post I clearly stated.... "If They Die". Being sued doesn't mean you will lose in court but that is irrelevant to point made.
How am I wrong on both counts when you just posted a section that has the language normally found in a good Samaritan act? And as far as the responsibility for first responders to render aid, I was already told by someone on this forum that N. Charleston PD Officers don't even learn first aid, seems bizarre but I guess it's up to members of the community to decide if that's ok with them.
I kept wondering why he ran from the cop.
I read this morning that he was $18K behind in child support payments and bench warrants had been issued.
So that is why he ran. He didn't want to get arrested and put in jail for nonpayment of child support.
Not a reason to be shot in the back 8 times though.
Agreed that it's not a reason to be shot in the back. But resisting arrest is itself a crime. There's a reason people are taught, in driver's education, how to conduct themselves vis a vis the police during a stop. Running is not one of those responses. And there are societal norms for a reason.
When I've stated that previously someone asked "who sets those norms" or words to that effect. My response is that I and the majority of people want to live in an orderly society. And freedom depends upon voluntary compliance with societal norms. Anarchy quickly descends into dictatorship for a reason. If those people like that kind of society, they are free to move to any number of such countries; Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen to name a few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
maybe it's just me but it's disturbing to turn non payment of support into a criminal issue, sounds like a return to the 19th century debtor prisons.
Thank the female rights lobby for that one. They insist on "child support" going through the wife in order that the child not look to the father as a real parent, along with the mother. Thank you for stripping fathers of any real role or power.
Most involved fathers, including my father-in-law, spent far more on their children than the support requirements.
yep, great idea- put people in prison for not paying support- that way you can make sure they will never pay it
Sometimes the mere Threat of prison is the only way to get deadbeats to pay. Somehow, some way, they get the money from relatives, friends, bank accounts they have under a girlfriend's name, etc.
Agreed that it's not a reason to be shot in the back. But resisting arrest is itself a crime. There's a reason people are taught, in driver's education, how to conduct themselves vis a vis the police during a stop. Running is not one of those responses. And there are societal norms for a reason.
When I've stated that previously someone asked "who sets those norms" or words to that effect. My response is that I and the majority of people want to live in an orderly society. And freedom depends upon voluntary compliance with societal norms. Anarchy quickly descends into dictatorship for a reason. If those people like that kind of society, they are free to move to any number of such countries; Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen to name a few.
Thank the female rights lobby for that one. They insist on "child support" going through the wife in order that the child not look to the father as a real parent, along with the mother. Thank you for stripping fathers of any real role or power.
Most involved fathers, including my father-in-law, spent far more on their children than the support requirements.
hate to break it to you, but I'm a woman... My thought about child support is that courts are too quick to give sole custody to mom's and leave dad's holding the bag. I think it should be presumptively assumed that both parents are equally capable parents and thus shared custody should always be granted unless it can be objectively proven that one parent is unfit, or if a parent refuses to assume custodial obligations.
Sometimes the mere Threat of prison is the only way to get deadbeats to pay. Somehow, some way, they get the money from relatives, friends, bank accounts they have under a girlfriend's name, etc.
I don't know Scott's circumstances.
unless you work in the court system or have 'deadbeat' friends or relatives you don't know if people actually 'come up with money' to pay support when they are sent to jail for non-payment. IMO you are just making that up to support arresting people for a civil obligation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
